This is boring. Moderators, this is pseudoscientific medical information. The OP is suggesting that cannabis can cure serious diseases. Frankly, in the best interests of everyone's health, I want acts420 to put up the PubMed peer-reviewed medical research studies that explicitly support his claims, or shut up. Medical quackery isn't something that can be tolerated, it kills people.

But it only kills stupid people, so it's not that dangerous. If you get hurt because you follow unverified medical advice on a internet religion forum, don't you kinda have it coming?

Oh, and you're not going to find much on PubMed, most cannabis research is pretty new so you'll find it in pure scientific journals, not medical journals. One of the Nature Journals would probably be a better starting point than PubMed. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's still peer-reviewed scientific data, they just don't have to jump through the FDA's hoops...speaking for myself, the scientific method is good enough. Of course, you're still not going to find support for some of the sweeping claims that acts420 is making, you have to look for independent documentaries on Netflix for that.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

This is boring. Moderators, this is pseudoscientific medical information. The OP is suggesting that cannabis can cure serious diseases. Frankly, in the best interests of everyone's health, I want acts420 to put up the PubMed peer-reviewed medical research studies that explicitly support his claims, or shut up. Medical quackery isn't something that can be tolerated, it kills people.

But it only kills stupid people, so it's not that dangerous. If you get hurt because you follow unverified medical advice on a internet religion forum, don't you kinda have it coming?

Yes, I guess. I suppose I am merely just a weak softie who doesn't think even stupid people dying of medical misinformation is funny. Maybe if you listen to the sounds of an infant dying of pertussis, a disease we have a vaccine for, you'll see what I mean.

Oh, and you're not going to find much on PubMed, most cannabis research is pretty new so you'll find it in pure scientific journals, not medical journals. One of the Nature Journals would probably be a better starting point than PubMed. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's still peer-reviewed scientific data, they just don't have to jump through the FDA's hoops...speaking for myself, the scientific method is good enough. Of course, you're still not going to find support for some of the sweeping claims that acts420 is making, you have to look for independent documentaries on Netflix for that.

Probably not. But if acts420 is going to make grand sweeping claims about Cannabis treating cancer, MS and Parkinson's and it all being on PubMed, he'd better be able to back it up. Fortunately, the rules agree with me:

Quote

* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency. These requests are made in order to facilitate open and honest discussion, without knowingly or unknowingly propagating false information. Do not be offended by such requests, but do make all haste in fulfilling them, in order to allow productive and edifying discussion to continue. We are just trying to meet our responsibility of fairness and remember we will all face the ultimate judge, Christ himself. We really want to make sure that our site is not responsible for advertising falsehoods whenever possible. No one on our moderation team is assuming anything you have said is not true; and, conversely, no one is assuming that your point is true just because you meet a minimum standard of "support." It is just confusing to try and figure out all the details and we are trying to be cautious. This is how Orthodox people are supposed to take all things, with a discerning spirit. Thank you for your understanding. We value your input on this site.

I think when someone starts saying "that eating or smoking cannabis drastically helps relieve the symptoms of [multiple sclerosis]", it is reasonable for him to be required to give us some evidence.

I wont doubt acts' claim, but the polemics being discussed sound like it came from page 48 of last month's High Times....

PP

Which could have easily been avoided if acts420 would simply give us the links to the abstracts of the articles supporting his claim that cannabis can treat cancer, autoimmune disease, viral infections and neurodegenerative disorders.

I wont doubt acts' claim, but the polemics being discussed sound like it came from page 48 of last month's High Times....

PP

Which could have easily been avoided if acts420 would simply give us the links to the abstracts of the articles supporting his claim that cannabis can treat cancer, autoimmune disease, viral infections and neurodegenerative disorders.

I think that is a reasonable request.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

"Wormwood that maketh glad the heart of man, and botox to make his face to shine, and ephedra which strengtheneth man's heart."

Wormwood is great as it is used to make absynthe, the one substance that is possibly better than vodka at curing the ills of the heart.

Better than chocolate ice cream?

Before I start, let me say that I LOVE chocolate ice cream. But as an anti-depressant, I've never had the sort of sadness that ice cream could solve. To be honest, alcohol doesn't really make you less sad, probably worse, but you don't remember it the next day!

These claims are not "highly controversial" at all, at least not where I live. This also is not "contrary to established medical practice" where I live.

You don't "understand science" completely, and neither do I. No one does except God because He alone is omniscient. My participating in this casual conversation and linking to a video of a medical doctor is not at all grossly unacceptable. What would be grossly unacceptable would be if, again, I am forced to do a sarcastic critic's homework for him.

I 'understand science' completely, I may not know or understand all the conclusions drawn from science, there have been quite a few of them after all, but science itself, the scientific method, isn't all that difficult, many, many people have a rather good grasp of it, including a few on this forum.

Quote

If you want to know if the medical doctor in the video I published is right, then get on pub med and start reading. That is where he gets much of his information. I did it years ago, and read many articles. I did not write them down. They are out there still if anyone cares enough to go find them and read them. If you actually cared about the topic at hand as much as you care about making me do your work for you then you would go look up a few pub med articles about cannabis yourself. But you don't. Instead, you want me to do your work for you.

Again, this same thing happened to me in the "premarital sex" thread when someone questioned if I actually had read ancient Jewish Rabbis that taught it was not a transgression under the law. The moderators agreed, and to keep talking about the topic, because it was so "highly controversial," I had to take time off from work and drive around town to various libraries to track down the specific Rabbi sources that I had casually read in the library years earlier. Of course the sources didn't matter a lick to the poster; all the sources in the world likely wouldn't matter. If the poster who used the moderators to make me do his homework really cared about the homework he likely would have done it himself.

In my experience in various forums, it seems that those who use the moderators to force others to do their homework for them aren't actually interested in the work to be done. They simply want a chance to spit the baby food back into my face. Feed yourself. It is part of growing up, and we all must be growing up continuously if we want to be like Christ.

The reason you're being asked for more evidence is because of the incredible nature of your claim. Cancerous cells are distinguished from normal cells by a genetic mutation that interferes with either cell signaling or cell replication making the cell replicate without the restrictions that apply to normal cells. So for something to cure cancer, it must enter a cell, read the DNA, detect a problematic mutation (and there are thousands, if not millions, of possibilities) and then either correct the mutation, or at least destroy the cell, as needed. Certain treatments like mustard gas (which evolved into chemotherapy) and radiation can help because they tend to destroy faster growing cells first and, because of the nature of cancer, these tend to be cancerous cells (and hair cells, of course ), but they are very crude tools, a long ways from a cure, and actually have the potential to cause mutations that can turn into cancer in non-cancerous cells; if marijuana were to act on cancerous cells in this manner, it would actually be a carcinogen as well, which, of course, it's not.

So if you're going to claim cannabis cures cancer, you're going to have to explain which types of cancer it works on (ideally differentiated by their respective genetic mutation), tell us which ingredients in cannabis smoke work on these cancerous cells, and let us know the mechanisms by which they work. This theoretical foundation might not be enough to entirely convince me of your argument, it would be more than enough for me to give credence to your argument and start doing my own homework. But, from where I stand, the claim seems so outlandish (for the reasons stated above) that I could simply not justify taking the time that would be required to seriously study it.

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate cannabis for its recreational value and even acknowledge that it has some medical purpose, mostly in symptom relief, but I'm not even close to convinced that it cures cancer, just like I don't take claims that diet can cure cancer seriously...help reduce risk, yes, but a cure? No.

I want to see cannabis become more socially and legally acceptable as well, but not at the cost of good science.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

This is boring. Moderators, this is pseudoscientific medical information. The OP is suggesting that cannabis can cure serious diseases. Frankly, in the best interests of everyone's health, I want acts420 to put up the PubMed peer-reviewed medical research studies that explicitly support his claims, or shut up. Medical quackery isn't something that can be tolerated, it kills people.

But it only kills stupid people, so it's not that dangerous. If you get hurt because you follow unverified medical advice on a internet religion forum, don't you kinda have it coming?

Yes, I guess. I suppose I am merely just a weak softie who doesn't think even stupid people dying of medical misinformation is funny. Maybe if you listen to the sounds of an infant dying of pertussis, a disease we have a vaccine for, you'll see what I mean.

I agree, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the parents who don't get their child vaccinated, regardless of the misinformation out there. I strongly believe that if you don't get your child vaccinated AND your child gets sick from disease that could have been prevented by vaccination that you should be guilty of child abuse and, if the child dies, of manslaughter. Withholding vaccinations is an obviously abusive act.

Oh, and you're not going to find much on PubMed, most cannabis research is pretty new so you'll find it in pure scientific journals, not medical journals. One of the Nature Journals would probably be a better starting point than PubMed. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's still peer-reviewed scientific data, they just don't have to jump through the FDA's hoops...speaking for myself, the scientific method is good enough. Of course, you're still not going to find support for some of the sweeping claims that acts420 is making, you have to look for independent documentaries on Netflix for that.

Probably not. But if acts420 is going to make grand sweeping claims about Cannabis treating cancer, MS and Parkinson's and it all being on PubMed, he'd better be able to back it up. Fortunately, the rules agree with me:

Quote

* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency. These requests are made in order to facilitate open and honest discussion, without knowingly or unknowingly propagating false information. Do not be offended by such requests, but do make all haste in fulfilling them, in order to allow productive and edifying discussion to continue. We are just trying to meet our responsibility of fairness and remember we will all face the ultimate judge, Christ himself. We really want to make sure that our site is not responsible for advertising falsehoods whenever possible. No one on our moderation team is assuming anything you have said is not true; and, conversely, no one is assuming that your point is true just because you meet a minimum standard of "support." It is just confusing to try and figure out all the details and we are trying to be cautious. This is how Orthodox people are supposed to take all things, with a discerning spirit. Thank you for your understanding. We value your input on this site.

I think when someone starts saying "that eating or smoking cannabis drastically helps relieve the symptoms of [multiple sclerosis]", it is reasonable for him to be required to give us some evidence.

I generally agree. When I saw you asking for PubMed articles I mistakenly assumed you were trying to restrict discussion to medical journals when the most relevant information available is to be found in scientific journals...I didn't think you were setting a fair standard. But then I went back and read through parts of the discussion again and realized that it was acts420 who brought up PubMed...so my apologies.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

This is boring. Moderators, this is pseudoscientific medical information. The OP is suggesting that cannabis can cure serious diseases. Frankly, in the best interests of everyone's health, I want acts420 to put up the PubMed peer-reviewed medical research studies that explicitly support his claims, or shut up. Medical quackery isn't something that can be tolerated, it kills people.

But it only kills stupid people, so it's not that dangerous. If you get hurt because you follow unverified medical advice on a internet religion forum, don't you kinda have it coming?

Yes, I guess. I suppose I am merely just a weak softie who doesn't think even stupid people dying of medical misinformation is funny. Maybe if you listen to the sounds of an infant dying of pertussis, a disease we have a vaccine for, you'll see what I mean.

I agree, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the parents who don't get their child vaccinated, regardless of the misinformation out there. I strongly believe that if you don't get your child vaccinated AND your child gets sick from disease that could have been prevented by vaccination that you should be guilty of child abuse and, if the child dies, of manslaughter. Withholding vaccinations is an obviously abusive act.

Honestly, I've never heard of someone being charged for man slaughter for neglecting their child in that fashion. Ultimately I agree it stops with the parents/guardians, but that doesn't mean internet forums need to tolerate medical mininformation being propagated through them.

Oh, and you're not going to find much on PubMed, most cannabis research is pretty new so you'll find it in pure scientific journals, not medical journals. One of the Nature Journals would probably be a better starting point than PubMed. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's still peer-reviewed scientific data, they just don't have to jump through the FDA's hoops...speaking for myself, the scientific method is good enough. Of course, you're still not going to find support for some of the sweeping claims that acts420 is making, you have to look for independent documentaries on Netflix for that.

Probably not. But if acts420 is going to make grand sweeping claims about Cannabis treating cancer, MS and Parkinson's and it all being on PubMed, he'd better be able to back it up. Fortunately, the rules agree with me:

Quote

* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency. These requests are made in order to facilitate open and honest discussion, without knowingly or unknowingly propagating false information. Do not be offended by such requests, but do make all haste in fulfilling them, in order to allow productive and edifying discussion to continue. We are just trying to meet our responsibility of fairness and remember we will all face the ultimate judge, Christ himself. We really want to make sure that our site is not responsible for advertising falsehoods whenever possible. No one on our moderation team is assuming anything you have said is not true; and, conversely, no one is assuming that your point is true just because you meet a minimum standard of "support." It is just confusing to try and figure out all the details and we are trying to be cautious. This is how Orthodox people are supposed to take all things, with a discerning spirit. Thank you for your understanding. We value your input on this site.

I think when someone starts saying "that eating or smoking cannabis drastically helps relieve the symptoms of [multiple sclerosis]", it is reasonable for him to be required to give us some evidence.

I generally agree. When I saw you asking for PubMed articles I mistakenly assumed you were trying to restrict discussion to medical journals when the most relevant information available is to be found in scientific journals...I didn't think you were setting a fair standard. But then I went back and read through parts of the discussion again and realized that it was acts420 who brought up PubMed...so my apologies.

No worries. I just kept repeating PubMed because he is the one claiming that articles supporting his claim exist there to begin with.

I think when someone starts saying "that eating or smoking cannabis drastically helps relieve the symptoms of [multiple sclerosis]", it is reasonable for him to be required to give us some evidence.

I already posted a link to a video in this thread where you can see the relieving effects of an MS patient immediately after smoking cannabis. It is almost like night and day. But of course you ignored it. And you would probably also ignore any "scientific" studies I posted, even if I spent hours tracking them down again.

The reason you're being asked for more evidence is because of the incredible nature of your claim.

What claim of mine is incredible? That cannabis oil extract cured my plantar warts that 3 doctors over 10 years could not? How exactly do you want me to "prove" that to you?

Or is it my claim that I read a bunch of articles in pub med between two and four years ago that supported the conclusion that cannabis not only treats symptoms of cancer but that its cannabinoids have also actually been used to kill cancer cells? If that's the "incredible" claim, then simply do a google search or pub med and you can read about it yourself. It's true.

I already posted a link to a page with a bunch of medical articles and studies concerning cannabis and cancer. In fact, I posted it twice. I'm not going to spend 10 hours reading through half of pub med to find the exact studies I read four years ago simply because laconicstudent would rather me spend the time than he. I posted a link to a video with medical doctor. I shared my personal experiences. I'm doing this as part of a casual, friendly conversation. If he so desperately wants more information, then he should do his homework. If anyone does not care about the topic, then he should not do his homework. If he does care, then he should. But if someone is not willing to educate himself when the education is just a few clicks and typed words away, then obviously he isn't actually seeking knowledge. It seems to me such a person is probably seeking a way to sarcastically spit whatever I feed him back in my face. I have no desire to help him do that.

I'm not going to spend 10 hours reading through half of pub med to find the exact studies I read four years ago simply because laconicstudent would rather me spend the time than he.

Then stop making ludicrous claims about cannabis being a panacea for multiple serious medical conditions. It really is that simple.

Cannabis has proven to be an effective treatment for many symptoms of many diseases, and has even been used to completely cure diseases. My former problem with plantar warts is just one example. I have friends who have other examples. I suggested an educational documentary that has more examples. And, of course, I already posted a link to a page with many more examples of cannabinoid extracts (from cannabis) being used against diseases. There is a ton of information out there. Go find it and read it if you want. Or ignore it. "It really is that simple."

If I were to force feed you I would be wasting my time. You're a grown person. If you really want knowledge, you already know where to go to find it. If, instead, you simply want to be a sarcastic critic, then obviously you already know how to do that too. The choice is yours.

There is a ton of information out there. Go find it and read it if you want. Or remain ignorant. It really is that simple. If I were to force feed you I would be wasting my time. You're a grown person. If you really want knowledge, you already know where to go to find it. If, instead, you simply want to be a sarcastic critic, then obviously you already know how to do that too. The choice is yours.

What I really expect is for you to stop spewing quackery all over the internet. However, you have the right of free speech, so I'm willing to tolerate this nonsense if you actually demonstrate your argument has some reasonable basis in reality. If not, then I hope a moderator comes along and tells you to put up or shut up, because this is ridiculous.

Cannabis cured the plantar warts on my foot. I've said this a thousand times and explained in detail how I used cannabis' cannabinoid extracts and how effective they were. Are you a troll?

My former problem with plantar warts is just one example. I have friends who have other examples with other diseases. I already mentioned in this thread an educational documentary that has still more examples. And, of course, I already posted a link to a page with many more examples of cannabinoid extracts (from cannabis) being used against diseases. There is a ton of information out there. I did a lot of research in pub med four years ago and found still more information about cannabis killing cancer cells in studies and all sorts of things. Go find it and read it if you want. Or ignore it and be a sarcastic critic of all I say. It really is that simple.

The links and videos (and links to cited studies) that I've already wasted my time finding for the critics here have been completely ignored. Sarcastic, critical replies (without mentioning any of the cited material) seem to be the preferred response here. I'm not going to waste my time giving sarcastic critics more ammo.

Cannabis cured the plantar warts on my foot. I've said this a thousand times and explained in detail how I used cannabis' cannabinoid extracts and how effective they were. Are you a troll?

Are you? You've claimed to be a doctor and a scientist and you think you have adequate power with a sample size of a single person, much less yourself? You seriously expect your personal anecdotes to be taken seriously?

Cannabis cured the plantar warts on my foot. I've said this a thousand times and explained in detail how I used cannabis' cannabinoid extracts and how effective they were. Are you a troll?

Are you? You've claimed to be a doctor and a scientist and you think you have adequate power with a sample size of a single person, much less yourself? You seriously expect your personal anecdotes to be taken seriously?

I grew a plant from a seed that God created a long time ago. I grew it in my backyard, extracted oil from its flowers, and used that to cure in two weeks a disease that three doctors over 10 years could not rid me of.

All I can do is tell you my experience. I'm not saying you have to believe me, or that I expect you to take me seriously. I'm just telling you my experience.

The links and videos, cited documentary, and the links to cited scientific studies that I've already wasted my time finding for the sarcastic critics in this thread have been completely ignored. Sarcastic, critical replies (without mentioning any of the cited material) seem to be the preferred response by a number of people here. I'm not going to waste my time finding and then giving such sarcastic critics more ammo for them to ignore and, at best, chew up and spit in my face with biting sarcasm and preferred ignorance.

If you want, you can take two minutes to dig down into the links cited by the links cited by that link, which is to a post I already posted to you in this thread. And if you do so, you'll find plenty of studies done about cannabis' effectiveness against ailments, studies done by "real scientists" in "universities." And then you can again ignore them and come up with a witty, sarcastic reply.

I can't even get the spoon near your mouth before you start spitting all over me. And you want me to spend hours pouring through specific medical journals for you? Yeah ... right.

If you want, you can take two minutes to dig down into the links cited by the links cited by that link, which is to a post I already posted to you in this thread. And if you do so, you'll find plenty of studies done about cannabis' effectiveness against ailments, studies done by "real scientists" in "universities." And then you can again ignore them and come up with a witty, sarcastic reply.

Or, you could take 10 seconds and copy and paste the ones which are relevant to your argument, which makes more sense with you having burden of proof.

I'm not going to spend 10 hours reading through half of pub med to find the exact studies I read four years ago simply because laconicstudent would rather me spend the time than he.

Then stop making ludicrous claims about cannabis being a panacea for multiple serious medical conditions. It really is that simple.

Cannabis has proven to be an effective treatment for many symptoms of many diseases, and has even been used to completely cure diseases. My former problem with plantar warts is just one example. I have friends who have other examples. I suggested an educational documentary that has more examples. And, of course, I already posted a link to a page with many more examples of cannabinoid extracts (from cannabis) being used against diseases. There is a ton of information out there. Go find it and read it if you want. Or ignore it. "It really is that simple."

There are most likely several beneficial uses of cannabis, mostly related to symptom relief, but I don't know that you can say any of them are 'proven', that is a rather strong claim to make. The problem is that there has been very little real research on cannabis because of it's status as a Schedule 1 drug and until it is removed from that classification it is unlikely that the research will be done.

Personally speaking, it has done wonders for certain medical conditions. I even recommend people try it for the relief of certain symptoms because the lack of side effects means that if it doesn't work it's not like you've put yourself at risk or anything serious (and I believe that statistics about deaths per year from marijuana use justify this assumption). But the fact that it works for me is meaningless from a scientific perspective, it's a non-randomly selected sample size of exactly one. Which gives us a confidence level of about 1 in 7 billion...now I might be able to make some assumptions my physiological relationship to the rest of the human race and improve that confidence level a bit, but not to a statistically significant level.

The problem is that you're asserting a scientific hypothesis, science has certain standards and "it worked for me and my buddy" doesn't quite meet those standards, there's a bit more too it. You have to, at the very least, quantify your research preformed in a controlled environment and the experiment then needs to be repeated under similar conditions and verified by an independent third party, all of this using a population large enough to give statistically meaningful results. Eventually you'll have to take into account confidence levels and population demographics as well, but for now, I'm just looking for the first part (I know the second part hasn't been done yet).

I actually had someone PM me some interesting information on this issue and it did not appear to be pseudoscience, it sparked my interest and I'm looking into it. But it takes more than a video of some dude in a lab coat, this is science after all.

Quote

If I were to force feed you I would be wasting my time. You're a grown person. If you really want knowledge, you already know where to go to find it. If, instead, you simply want to be a sarcastic critic, then obviously you already know how to do that too. The choice is yours.

If I took every claim that X cures cancer seriously, I was waste away my life in a flood of pseudoscience. If you're going to assert a scientific hypothesis it's your responsibility to support it.

Why do we feel the need to make up these extravagant claims about cannabis? Can't we just say that we like to get high, legalize it on those grounds, and then allow proper scientific study to follow. Drug prohibition is a 20th century phenomena that has failed spectacularly, that should be reason enough to decriminalize.

There are probably many great things about cannabis, there could be some negative side effects that have yet to be discovered (probably not, substantive negative side effects of popular drugs are usually rather easily discovered and well known, but it's worth a proper study). But the unfortunate reality is that we really need more research to be able to make these claims, the research simply hasn't been properly funded and undertaken, largely due to cannabis' status as a schedule 1 drug.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

If you want, you can take two minutes to dig down into the links cited by the links cited by that link, which is to a post I already posted to you in this thread. And if you do so, you'll find plenty of studies done about cannabis' effectiveness against ailments, studies done by "real scientists" in "universities." And then you can again ignore them and come up with a witty, sarcastic reply.

Or, you could take 10 seconds and copy and paste the ones which are relevant to your argument, which makes more sense with you having burden of proof.

It's not 10 seconds. I would have to go back and find the ones that convinced me of these things like two to four years ago. I found them through pub med. It would take a lot of time to find them again. Just as much time as it would take you to go find a single one.

Do you act like this in casual conversation in your "in the flesh" personal life? When sitting with someone at work, if they say, "Hey, I tried this, and it worked wonderfully for this disease I had.... I saw a documentary also, and people said it healed them," do you then berate them with requests for proof from university studies? Then, when they provide some, do you ignore them and continue to troll the person for more studies from specific medical journals? Or do you only behave this way online? Seriously. Do you treat people this way in the flesh? Do you even have flesh?

I already posted this link. It took me two and a half seconds to find, and two and a quarter of those was spent typing "google.com" and then "cancer cannabis". It was the first link under google's listings. Do you want me to read the entire page for you?

Ok, we'll start with the first line. It says "MD SAFE ACCESS" Agreed? How about you try the second line. Go ahead. You can do it if you try.

Would you like me to read the first line of that article for you also?

I would, but then you would find weaknesses in the science, which I'm sure there are. Then you would troll me over and over to post another article. And the trolling and berating would never end. I could probably go find a study from Harvard University that killed cancer cells with cannabinoids and you would brush it off as non-sense. I could then perhaps show that the DEA started an administrative proceeding shortly after said study to put cannabis in "schedule one" ("no medical value"), nearly banning entirely even medical research into the plant by anyone in the entire country regardless of qualifications. You'd then probably tell me to put on my tin foil hat. I might then show you Francis Young's determination, as DEA administrative judge over the regulation, that cannabis should not be illegal and is the safest of the therapeutic plants known to man. I may show you that Nixon had his administration, heavily funded by big pharma, ignore the DEA administrative law judge and place it in schedule one. You'd then perhaps tell me to go get high because I'm just some drugged up hippy. I could deny it all day, but you'd perhaps judge me just like Nixon judged others, and just like the Pharisees judged Christ.

I'm not the first person in history to believe Genesis 1. John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you said, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you said, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ I eat cannabis, burn it as incense, and rub its oils on my diseases. And you say, "What gets me about these pot-worshipers is that they can never just admit all they want to do is smoke it for fun." All I'm saying is it healed my foot for Christ's sake! Calm down. I'm not saying it isn't fun. But fun is the wrong reason to use it if that's all you see it for. So I'm glad you don't use the stuff because you'd be perverting it anyway.

Then you say, "They have to throw in all this fake b.s. to make them look like they have a purpose." I'm telling you I used it to heal my foot. Are you calling me a liar because of that? Do you hate this plant that much? Or is it my freedom you hate?

Then you say, "Otherwise, you'd lump them in with the average person who likes to drink. Oh yeah, it kills germs, but you get this great buzz!" The Pharisees also liked to talk about how much Christ liked to drink. But wisdom is proved right by all her children.

As you said, humans have ingested poison ivy to gain immunity to poison ivy.

But no one uses it for food.

Frankly your claim that poison ivy is food seems pretty stupid (no disrespect intended), but more power to you.

No disrespect taken. And since we're being frank, to me it seems pretty stupid to say a plant that is ingested is not food.

isn't any poison one might consume, even if it results in certain death, "ingested"?

Would you then say that any toxic substance ingested in any amount, fatal or not, is food since said toxic substances are ingested?

You seem to be going to some pretty extreme lengths to defend your claim that poison plants, poison ivy, etc. are food.

Every seed bearing plant has parts that can be ingested safely in certain amounts and which are in some sense beneficial when ingested. I call those parts "food." Mine is not an extreme position.

As questionable as your last answer also seems to me, you're actually answering what I didn't ask. I'll try to spell it out more clearly; apologies if my question was confusing to you.You said it was "stupid" to say any plant which is ingested is not food

If ingested, a plant is food, end of story, Q. E. D. (your claim)

We would have to conclude hemlock that killed Socrates' tea is therefore food because Socrates ingested it (given your claim)

And therefore that poison ivy, nightshade, hemlock, whatever, is all food -simply if someone ingests it.

But if a dog ingests antifreeze and dies, antifreeze is not dog food simply because the antifreeze was ingested.

Saying it is stupid to deny that any plant that is ingested is not food, also seems to be a pretty dubious argument. Using a dubious corollary to defend your previous claim, also dubious, that "poison ivy is food," is what I was referring to when I said the lengths you go to to defend an idiosyncratic position seems a bit extreme; who knows what kind of argument you will come up with next, but we know you will think of something!

I should say -I do say- I don't think *you* are stupid, at all, even if you don't get quite what is being said to you a lot of the time and reply to something that wasn't quite the point; to the contrary, you are perhaps in ways too creatively intelligent in that I'm pretty sure you could find a way to defend the proposition that the sea is made of Coca Cola against all comers if you wanted to. That wouldn't make the idea that the sea is made of Coca Cola more plausible to us, but we would all have jolly good fun having that discussion.

Lastly, you seem to miss my point in saying you seem to go to extreme lengths to defend your claims and brought up something else, and said *that* wasn't extreme. You said:

Quote from: acts420

"Every seed bearing plant has parts that can be ingested safely in certain amounts and which are in some sense beneficial when ingested. I call those parts "food." Mine is not an extreme position.

But I do think that also seems on the fringe. Though it wasn't what I was talking about, we can discuss that too.

If it is not "extreme" to suggest that all poisonous plants *are* really good for food (even if we don't *know* it yet aside from your personal take on the implications of ), what is it? Mainstream/normative?

acts420: Your excessively belligerent approach to pontificating has provoked much of the pushback you have received on this thread. Whereas I agree that this is not a scientific discussion that demands the kind of proof laconicstudent has asked of you, I do believe that simple politeness and the common desire to maintain peace on this thread place on you some burden to post the sources he's requesting. I encourage you to stop blowing him off and instead post some of the sources you say you've read on the medical benefits of cannabis.

That said, it's certainly within the prerogative of your audience to read more to verify your claims if they want to, just as the Bereans read the Scriptures to verify St. Paul's claims. However, it is still incumbent upon you to first make a convincing case for your point of view. You have resisted doing so, despite others' increasingly insistent demands that you substantiate your claims. I therefore think laconicstudent's request for sources reasonable and formally expect that, if you wish to rejoin this discussion, you will fulfill his request within the next 72 hours.

laconicstudent:acts420 is not giving specific medical advice to a specific individual based on information that individual has shared on this forum. He has merely asserted his general understanding of medical conditions for which cannabis may be an effective treatment. If anyone here is actually foolish enough to follow acts420's "advice" without first consulting with a physician or at least conducting his own research, then his stupidity is on his own shoulders. I don't know that we bear any more responsibility to protect such idiots from the consequences of their own stupidity than to post a formal disclaimer that acts420's "advice" is to be taken as nothing more than the pontification of an anonymous Internet poster and that no one should experiment with following it outside the supervision of a physician.

All: FWIW, I live in a state where the use of marijuana is legal when prescribed by a physician, so I find myself somewhat inclined to agree (not as a moderator, but as merely an anonymous Internet yahoo) with many of the assertions acts420 has made of its medicinal value. (I even signed a petition earlier this spring to put on the fall ballot in my state a voter initiative to legalize marijuana for all purposes, though I don't have any use for it myself.) I just think we could all do well to ratchet down our rhetoric several notches. Consider my decision to reopen this thread an expression of my faith that you will do so. If the thread explodes once again into a burning mess of belligerent pontifications and demands for proof, however, it will be locked permanently and formal discipline may be meted out to make sure everyone understands that the kind of inflammatory dialogue I've seen here is inimical to the mission of the OC.net discussion forum and will not be tolerated.

Whereas I agree that this is not a scientific discussion that demands the kind of proof laconicstudent has asked of you, I do believe that simple politeness and the common desire to maintain peace on this thread place on you some burden to post the sources he's requesting. I encourage you to stop blowing him off and instead post some of the sources you say you've read on the medical benefits of cannabis.

Please be specific. I already cited a peer-reviewed scientific article, before you locked the thread, showing that the cannabinoids in cannabis have been used against diseased cells in medical experiments. And I made clear that more are to be find at the link I have already provided. I had provided a link to that article and more, but I kept on getting trolled to actually post a citation. So I clicked into my own link from page two of this thread, copied the citation, and pasted it here on page three for these people. How many more articles do I need go copy and paste to this page, from the link I gave on page two, in order to be "polite?"

Biro has for whatever reason asked me to provided specific articles from "The Lancet" and "the New England Journal of Medicine." laconicstudent has quoted his demand in one of his posts to me, and asked me to copy and paste relevant medical articles. Are you saying I must now take time off to find these journals, pour through them for articles related to cannabis, and post my findings for biro and laconicstudent? Or do you mean I must simply copy and paste more articles from the page I've already posted a link to? (I already copied and pasted one article from that page.) How many more articles do I need to cut and paste, exactly? Or do I just need to search for "cannabis" in pub med and copy and paste some articles from there to here?

That said, it's certainly within the prerogative of your audience to read more to verify your claims if they want to, just as the Bereans read the Scriptures to verify St. Paul's claims. However, it is still incumbent upon you to first make a convincing case for your point of view. You have resisted doing so, despite others' increasingly insistent demands that you substantiate your claims. I therefore think laconicstudent's request for sources reasonable and formally expect that, if you wish to rejoin this discussion, you will fulfill his request within the next 72 hours.

If I simply need to provide a peer-reviewed article found from searching pub med, then here is one I found after a quick search in pub med for "cannabis." "As a medical drug, marijuana should be available for patients who do not adequately respond to currently available therapies." Analysis of the medical use of marijuana and its societal implications; Taylor HG; Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Washington,D.C.). 1998 Mar-Apr;38(2):220-7.

My assertion has been very simple. Cannabis healed me, others say it has healed them, and medical science has shown it can be used therapeutically. As far as my own disease and healing, all I can provide is my own testimony. For others, I cited an educational documentary video where others make similar claims by name on video record. I provided the testimony of a medical doctor regarding cannabis' medical benefits in the video I linked to in the original post. I cited a journal article anyone can read, even before this thread was locked, and cited a database where more such articles can be found. Now I've searched that database myself and posted another scientific, peer-reviewed journal article that anyone can read.

Is this enough yet? May I please talk freely here now about my experiences with the plants God created?

acts420's "advice" is to be taken as nothing more than the pontification of an anonymous Internet poster

Actually, I'm not anonymous. My website is posted under every post of mine, and there anyone can find my name and phone number in case he or she would like to speak to me. If anyone wants to meet me, he can feel free to give me a call and we can arrange a meeting. I live in San Francisco.

All: ... If the thread explodes once again into a burning mess of belligerent pontifications and demands for proof, however, it will be locked permanently and formal discipline may be meted out to make sure everyone understands that the kind of inflammatory dialogue I've seen here is inimical to the mission of the OC.net discussion forum and will not be tolerated.[/b][/color]

If you could list specific examples of my excessively belligerent behavior, I would appreciate it. Then I could attempt to conform myself to your principles and avoid your formal discipline. Please be careful though. There is a time when it is right and orthodox to respond to sarcasm with sarcasm. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." I only walked them through the links I posted as if they could not do so themselves, to the scientific article I already provided, after they repeatedly ignored it while continuing to request a peer-reviewed, scientific article again and again. I had provided it. They had ignored it. I told them they were ignoring it. They continued to ignore it and request articles like it. So I finally used some of their sarcasm back at them. I honestly don't know what else to do.

If the blind man that Christ healed told people how his disease had been removed, and if a bunch of Pharisees became belligerently upset because he mentioned the c-word, then I would be very careful before accusing that man of being excessively belligerent simply because of his zeal for the c-word. Wonderful medicines tend not only to make people thankful. Often they'll make those they've healed want to tell others about it, especially if they love their neighbors.

I used cannabis to heal myself of a disease that had been plaguing me for years and which my doctors could not heal. I have since found that many have similar experiences, and a large number of doctors acknowledge cannabis' medical benefits. If saying so makes me belligerent, then lock my discussions about cannabis. God have mercy on us.

You said it was "stupid" to say any plant which is ingested is not food

You used the word "stupid," and then I used your word. But more importantly, I then further clarified what "food" is. Specifically, I said, "Every seed bearing plant has parts that can be ingested safely in certain amounts and which are in some sense beneficial when ingested. I call those parts 'food.'"

Therefore, food is the amount of any plant's parts that can be eaten for our benefit. If plants have parts that do not benefit us, then those parts are not food. If it has amounts that do not benefit us, then those amounts are not food. It is in this sense of 'proper amount' and 'proper parts' that all seed bearing plants were given to us for our food.

We would have to conclude hemlock that killed Socrates' tea is therefore food because Socrates ingested it (given your claim)

No. He ate hemlock in a way that killed him. So I would say he did not use it as food. I could say "not food," but more accurately I could say "food abuse." People die from eating hamburger too, after all; it just takes longer.

The point is, even hemlock is beneficial in smaller amounts. So even it can be used as "food" according to my definition. Historically, hemlock was used as medicine in very small amounts. Hemlock is an extremely unique plant because the line between toxic and beneficial for that plant is very fine. So people had to be very careful. It could easily turn into poison. Nonetheless, it is food, just as God said it is, when used in the proper amounts.

Using a dubious corallary to defend your previous claim, also dubious, that "poison ivy is food," is what I was referring to when I said the lengths you go to to defend your arguments (this is just one example) seem a bit extreme; who knows what kind of argument you will come up with next, but we know you will think of something!

I'm extreme because I define the stuff we can eat for our benefit as "food." ?I'd say your's is the extreme position.

I should say -I do say- I don't think *you* are stupid, at all, even if you don't get quite what is being said to you a lot of the time and reply to something that wasn't quite the point; to the contrary, you are perhaps in ways too creatively intelligent in that I'm pretty sure you could find a way to defend the proposition that the sea is made of Coca Cola against all comers if *you wanted to. That wouldn't make the idea that the sea is made of Coca Cola more plausible to us, but we would all have jolly good fun having that discussion.

I don't think you are stupid either. I, however, am extremely stupid. I'm the stupidest man.

Lastly, you seem to miss my point in saying you seem to go to extreme lengths to defend your claims and brought up something else, and said *that* wasn't extreme. You said:

Quote from: acts420

"Every seed bearing plant has parts that can be ingested safely in certain amounts and which are in some sense beneficial when ingested. I call those parts "food." Mine is not an extreme position.

But I do think that also seems on the fringe. Though it wasn't what I was talking about, we can discuss that too.

If it is not "extreme" to suggest that all poisonous plants *are* really good for food (even if we don't *know* it yet aside from your personal take on the implications of ), what is it? Mainstream/normative?

Yes, it is normative. If I can't believe the first chapter of the Bible without saying, "All seed bearing plants?! That's too extreme; surely He can't mean all of them!!" then why should I bother continuing to read it? No one person can tell you the name of every plant on earth without opening a massive book that they do not know 25% of. We are learning more about our world every day.

I'll put it this way then. I don't know of any seed bearing plants that do not contain food.

Medical Cannabis and Its Impact on Human Health a Cannabis Documentaryhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Md2WNqqxTQ"In this myth shattering, information packed documentary, learn from physicians and leading researchers about medicinal cannabis and its demonstrated effects on human health."

Quotes from doctors in the video: "Up until the 20th centruy, cannabis was probably the 2nd or 3rd most commonly used medicine in the world..."

"It was the misconception that use of marijuana led to debauchery and physical violence [popularized in the media] that led to its prohibition... It had been used medicinally as well as recreationally... It was then classified as a schedule one substance, a substance with no medically useful effects...." says Dr. Donald Tashkin, MD, Professor of Pulminary Medicine, UCLA.

He then explains how he did one of the largest studies regarding cannabis use and lung disease and found that for every category of cannabis users, even heavy users, their use was associated with a *reduced* risk of lung disease.

You said it was "stupid" to say any plant which is ingested is not food

You used the word "stupid," and then I used your word. But more importantly, I then further clarified what "food" is. Specifically, I said, "Every seed bearing plant has parts that can be ingested safely in certain amounts and which are in some sense beneficial when ingested. I call those parts 'food.'"

Therefore, food is the amount of any plant's parts that can be eaten for our benefit. If plants have parts that do not benefit us, then those parts are not food. If it has amounts that do not benefit us, then those amounts are not food. It is in this sense of 'proper amount' and 'proper parts' that all seed bearing plants were given to us for our food.

We would have to conclude hemlock that killed Socrates' tea is therefore food because Socrates ingested it (given your claim)

No. He ate hemlock in a way that killed him. So I would say he did not use it as food. I could say "not food," but more accurately I could say "food abuse." People die from eating hamburger too, after all; it just takes longer.

The point is, even hemlock is beneficial in smaller amounts. So even it can be used as "food" according to my definition. Historically, hemlock was used as medicine in very small amounts. Hemlock is an extremely unique plant because the line between toxic and beneficial for that plant is very fine. So people had to be very careful. It could easily turn into poison. Nonetheless, it is food, just as God said it is, when used in the proper amounts.

Using a dubious corallary to defend your previous claim, also dubious, that "poison ivy is food," is what I was referring to when I said the lengths you go to to defend your arguments (this is just one example) seem a bit extreme; who knows what kind of argument you will come up with next, but we know you will think of something!

I'm extreme because I define the stuff we can eat for our benefit as "food." ?I'd say your's is the extreme position.

I should say -I do say- I don't think *you* are stupid, at all, even if you don't get quite what is being said to you a lot of the time and reply to something that wasn't quite the point; to the contrary, you are perhaps in ways too creatively intelligent in that I'm pretty sure you could find a way to defend the proposition that the sea is made of Coca Cola against all comers if *you wanted to. That wouldn't make the idea that the sea is made of Coca Cola more plausible to us, but we would all have jolly good fun having that discussion.

I don't think you are stupid either. I, however, am extremely stupid. I'm the stupidest man.

Lastly, you seem to miss my point in saying you seem to go to extreme lengths to defend your claims and brought up something else, and said *that* wasn't extreme. You said:

Quote from: acts420

"Every seed bearing plant has parts that can be ingested safely in certain amounts and which are in some sense beneficial when ingested. I call those parts "food." Mine is not an extreme position.

But I do think that also seems on the fringe. Though it wasn't what I was talking about, we can discuss that too.

If it is not "extreme" to suggest that all poisonous plants *are* really good for food (even if we don't *know* it yet aside from your personal take on the implications of ), what is it? Mainstream/normative?

Yes, it is normative. If I can't believe the first chapter of the Bible without saying, "All seed bearing plants?! That's too extreme; surely He can't mean all of them!!" then why should I bother continuing to read it? No one person can tell you the name of every plant on earth without opening a massive book that they do not know 25% of. We are learning more about our world every day.

I'll put it this way then. I don't know of any seed bearing plants that do not contain food.

What I posted in bold green text is a moderatorial directive, which is not to be questioned publicly. If you wish to question my directive further, please do so with me via private message. I will entertain no more questions of my instructions on this thread.

Just ignore that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" See Genesis 1:29.

You seem to assume usage of the Hebrew word כָּל in Hebrew literature entails a univeral/absolutistic usage of all. The literature itself often seems to belay that assumption. How then do you interpret the following passages? (random):

"Moreover, ALL the earth [וְכָל־הָאָ֙רֶץ֙] came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over ALL the earth [בְּכָל־ הָאָֽרֶץ]."

Would you claim that everyone on earth, e.g. from China, Australia, and the Americas came to Egypt to buy grain at this time?

"The end of ALL flesh is come before Me..." [קֵ֤ץ כָּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י] (Gen 6:13)

Should Noah or any other living creature have survived this pronouncement? Were Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark made of flesh?

Actually, my desire is to see that people don't have to die like my Father did, God rest his soul. He got skin cancer; the same cancer I later saw people in the educational documentary "Run From the Cure" healed themselves of using cannabis oil extract. My Father's doctors' treatments didn't work for him, much like my doctors' treatments for my plantar warts didn't work for me. The cancer spread. Eventually it had to be treated aggressively. The doctor's treatments still didn't work, but they did make him very nauseous all the time. He had trouble eating. Cancer and the inability to eat are a very bad combo. From what I've read and the patients I've spoken too, cannabis would have helped him greatly in his fight.

However, cannabis was made illegal in his State and Country about 70 years before he got cancer. My hope is that someday children will see their fathers healed of this disease instead of dying a slow, dreadful, agonizing, and painful death over months and years from it.

Perhaps that's because you didn't have painful warts on your feet for years that doctors couldn't cure but which cannabis cured in two weeks. Or perhaps that is because you don't have MS, and therefore you haven't seen first hand that eating or smoking cannabis drastically helps relieve the symptoms of that terrible disease. It helps many with Parkinson's also. Cannabis helps and even heals more diseases than we can count, from simple warts to the most devastating diseases known to man, and it does so very cheaply. That is precisely why big pharma lobbied the government to lie about it and make it illegal 80 years ago.

It was not fun at all to rub cannabis oil on my feet to heal the painful plantar warts. It didn't get me high at all. Also, eating it in the raw form does not get you high but has incredible medical benefits. Eating it cooked (or smoking it) does get you high... but that's not all it does. It helps with nausea and appetite stimulation when you're sick, and it relieves the symptoms of many diseases also.

Or is it my claim that I read a bunch of articles in pub med between two and four years ago that supported the conclusion that cannabis not only treats symptoms of cancer but that its cannabinoids have also actually been used to kill cancer cells? If that's the "incredible" claim, then simply do a google search or pub med and you can read about it yourself. It's true.

Cannabis has proven to be an effective treatment for many symptoms of many diseases, and has even been used to completely cure diseases.

Cancer is literally a cure for any disease at all.

Acts420 has been quite insistant that research backing up these claims exists, when questioned, so I don't think this is unreasonable. Of course, I will be content if he simply admits that no evidence for the above claims he's made exists beyond personal anecdote, the personal opinion of a former heart surgeon, the Bible or various blogs and popular news sites/forums etc. All I want to do is see him take the reasonable step of giving us the scientific sources he says exist or admit that they don't, for the above claims.

This may be an issue of religious liberty, which as with all religious liberties must be exercised with prayer, knowledge, and caution. There are some potential positive medicinal and psychological effects of Cannabis, but there are also potential negative effects. To ingest Cannabis as a non-psychotropric agent is probably good for most people (boil it as a tea in water, without milk or oil, because the psychotropic effects of the THC are only activated when Marijuana is smoked or mixed with fat or oil.) For many people, the psychotropic effects of marijuana produce a calm, meditative state that is very conducive to prayer. But for others, the psychotropic effects of marijuana produce paranoia, confusion, disorentation, and a disruption of the consciousness that is antithetical to prayer and meditation. So, the "one size fits all" mentality is very dangerous.

The Orthodox view of creation is that created matter is good, and we should honor it as such. However, we must also acknowledge the consequences of the fall and realize that all of creation has been affected- not completely corrupted, but affected - by the fall. Therefore, we should not condemn any created thing as evil, but neither should we assume that everything "natural" is beneficial or safe. For example, rattlesnakes are not evil; they are a vital part of the ecosystem. But it would be foolish to assume that because they are created by God that we should not be fearful and cautious in approaching them.

OK, that's my brief two cents on the matter for now.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+